Saturday, 31 May 2014

The future of the UK in the world

The UK was the the leader in the world because it was an aggressive aquisitional nation. Success allowed self belief to grow. The belief that the race was unique and destined to rule the world. In the UK itself the ruling classes treated their fellow nationals (the poor and working classes) with contempt, so not all benefited from the Empire. Like most empires those that benefit the most are those that exploit the opportunity the most.

There may never be another empirical power in the world as education and communication inform populations. The US public eventually pull back military expeditions. Will the Russian people do the same in Ukraine? Slightly less education and slightly more information control so the elite there may be able to take their ambitions further. China is the largest of other nations that have limited/controlled information but they have good education. There are other Arabic, African and Asian nations with poor general education and controlled information. Most of these seem focused on trying to maintain this internal control rather than an aggressive development of an empire. 

Empires have moved from governments to corporates. Ford, Coke, Microsoft, Tata, etc. Here money rather than arms are the tool to expand and dominate. These corporations don't want war, as it stops trade. This corporate objective increases the barrier against an aggressive nation attempting to dominate another. But what has enabled both the early national empires and the later corporate empires?

Technology & education.  More precisely a technology that was unique to and gave an advantage and usually several cascading technology advances that accumilted so that the whole was bigger than the sum. Education that includes training and discipline. The ability to build ships, the weapons, the processes, sexton, marine watches, communications. These enabled those equipped with these to adapt to changing situations. As they were deployed they would be adapted and new technologies and information would emerge. Corporates too used multiple technological advantages to get ahead.

Both national and corporate empires required investment to develop maintain technologies and both seem to get to a stage where their size prevents innovation. Where the received wisdom stifles innovation allowing competitors to catch up and weaken, undermine and evetully destroy the advantage. 

However, innovation in technology today does not need as much money, and the drivers to develop and evolve are not just based on greed and power, but on humanities and problem solving. Education, information are readily available in most developed countries. Some of it especially the state/mass education is limited. It is more about training people for jobs than educating them to make the most of their lives or contribute (other than as a worker).

In Israel they still have national service, they have a clear identifiable enemy, they have a high standard of standard and higher science focused education. The national service equalises the population deminishing the elitism increases cooperation and team work. The identifiable enemy gives focus, showing that a common objective with team work can lead to innovation. The sience based education enables evidenced based progress. The result is that Israel has more research centres, start ups and incubators per capita than anywhere else in the world. It has more start ups on NASDQ than Europe and India combined.

They are not all going to succeed but evolution is about creating lots and seeing which survives. It also creates the opportunity for them to combine or take parts of each other to make a something new and better. With limited natural resources, technology is the way to generate wealth and a unique place in the world economy. Is it sustainable? Nothing is, but if you can get far enough ahead, not just in what you do but the way you do it, others will take a long time to catch up.

In the UK the world wars levelled society. Since then inequality has crept in. The politicians have become subservient to the business elite and between them are holding their position by keeping the working classes relatively poor, educationally and financially. Even where the working classes make it they still remain outside those born into money. This imperial class view, the poor sience based education, the promotion of the individual over the team, are gradually squandering the opportunity for the UK to retain and improve its position in the world.

Thursday, 22 May 2014

A Deliberately Spoiled Ballot Paper Is A Vote

Not voting is dismissed as apathy. 

If you put your X on a party as a protest vote it is just counted put in a bundle with an elastic band around it. 

Vote for whomever you really want, but if you want to show you are dissatisfied with the UK electoral system or the choice of policies, then there are two options;

  1. Leave the ballot paper blank and put it in the ballot box.
  2. Spoil the ballot paper


Leaving the ballot paper blank means it is counted as such. There is an organisation suggesting this action (http://www.blankvote.org.uk/). My feeling is that this could be almost dismissed as easily as “apathy” as “a mistake”. An idiot that doesn’t know to put a cross in a box! Clearly this harder to dismiss if numbers are large, but the opportunity to vote is infrequent so why leave any doubt. 

However, spoiling your ballot paper does four things; 

  1. It shows you are not apathetic 
  2. It is counted
  3. it can’t be dismissed as a mistake, If you do it correctly
  4. It is shown to each of the candidates in turn (not just counted and bundled). So if you write “you’re all a load of self-serving, lying bastards” Each candidate is asked “is this a vote for you?” The most common text is “None of the above”. Another common text is to right “No” in each of the boxes.


What you write is up to you (suggestions welcome, please try to be witty not crude), but don’t be dismissed as apathetic, make your vote count, make you opinion heard. You have a much louder voice than you think if you use it at the ballot box

Some interesting info around UK elections

There is a petition to get a box on every UK ballot paper for None Of The Above (NOTA). So protest votes are properly registered and recorded. Here 

The lowest turnout in a general election was recorded in 1918 at 57.2 %, due to the end of the First World War. Between 1922 and 1997 turnout remained above 71 %. In 1950 and 1951 the turnout was 83.9% and 82.6% respectively the two highest turnouts recorded. 

These two elections on consecutive years of 1950 and 1951 show some interesting things. That 1.3% drop saw the Conservatives get in over Labour. Plus in 1951 Labour had the highest number of votes ever (to date of this blog) for any party and still Labour lost. This is a problem of the “first past the post” voting system and was a result of the Liberals not contending some seats that resulted in Liberal voters voting Conservative.

Party
Votes
Seats
Change
UK Vote Share (%)
GB Vote Share (%)
Conservative
13,718,199
321
+ 23
48.0
47.8
Labour
13,948,883
295
- 20
48.8
49.4
Liberal
730,546
6
- 3
2.6
2.6
Others
198,966
3
n/c
0.6
0.3


In 2010 only 65.1% voted and only 20% for the Conservatives. 80% didn’t vote for the party that governs the country. 45% voted against the Conservatives.